Sarah Palin: A brilliant move by John McCain?

Governor Sarah Palin would not have been my first choice: only because I never heard of her before now. But that doesn't make her a bad choice at all.

In fact, if McCain wins, it will go down in history as one of the shrewdest and brilliant political plays of all time.

And if the mainstream media can be used as a barometer, she was a great choice.

Almost everything printed or broadcast from the mainstream media goes out of it's way to paint anything and everything about her in a negative light. If she ran in front of a car to push a child to safety and the car hit her, the headline would be "Palin Damages Car".

With Joe Biden, on the other hand, the press seems to be suffering from a collective memory loss spanning his entire political career. Biden has made so many politic gaffs, had so many errors in judgement, that it would take a week to Google them all.
But the press only has nice things to say; or those with any shred of ethics left simply don't mention him much.

So McCain's choice of the Governor of Alaska may be sheer genius. Say what you will about McCain, you Obama and left wingers, but he's politically savvy. He didn't throw a dart blindly at a map: he knows her lack of elected experience is going to dampen that line of attack on Obama. Other than his flip-flopping and "it depends how you define 'is'" statements of late, lack of experience was and is one of Obama's weak points. I know that, you know that, and you can bet John McCain sure does.

Yet he gives up valuable ammunition and chooses Sarah Palin as a running mate. There's a real good reason. Pieces of it are out there, but McCain deliberately chose her for a reason.

I'm actually starting to get interested in this election again....and maybe that was McCain's whole point: to wake up the voters already bored by this seemingly never-ending campaign. I don't know....not yet. But Marc Chamot, one of my favorite commentators, thinks he does.

Marc explains we he opts for "Brilliant" in his article. Click "read more" ..

read more digg story

del.icio.us Tags:palin, sarahpalin, mccain, vp, marcchamot, republican, mccain vp
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Technorati Tags:palin, sarahpalin, mccain, vp, marcchamot, republican, mccainvp
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Hillary apparently facing reality so it's Obama versus McCain? Great.

Compared to my other Blog, The Unloading Zone, my posts here have been pretty sparse. If someone told me this would happen when I started Anyone But Hillary in 2008!, I would

Politics at the National level primarily and at the State level to a lesser degree have fascinated me since I was a teenager (a LONG time ago). I think I've mentioned in previous posts that at 13, I was at the 1972 Republican Convention handing out 'Re-Elect Nixon" buttons and materials.

I lived through the Carter administration where he finally went on TV and blamed the American Public for the "malaise" the Country was experiencing.

I rode the highs of the Reagan years, saw my dream come true in the 90's when the Republicans took both houses of Congress for the first time in decades....and had my dreams crushed with as the minority Democrat party systematically destroyed the Gingrich Revolution....because the Republicans had been in the minority so long they forgot how to Lead Congress.

And then we elected George W. Bush to eight years. I voted for him both times only because I thought the Democrat alternative was worse

The Republican scandals in Congress continued. Now were a half trillion dollars in debt and growing, the dollar is becoming worthless, we're involved in a war we had no justification to start in the first place.

Then came the 2008 Primaries which started too early in 2007. And with it, the biggest crop of losers I can remember seeing, from BOTH sides of the isle, running for President....with a tightly controlled mainstream media universally and simultaneously deciding who to cover, who to marginalize, we apparently have our two contenders right in the nick of time: Barack Obama and John McCain. Wow.

In this ENTIRE Country, the Democrats and Republicans couldn't do any better then that?

I did start getting excited by one candidate. At least Ron Paul had a few good ideas and the Congress could have stopped anything too extreme he proposed. But ending Pax America, closing all our overseas bases and bringing all the troops home: THAT was a good idea.

The Cold War is over and the proxy wars we and the Soviet Union fought through other countries prevented a direct and likely nuclear confrontation between the two of us. But that time is past. The Soviet Union is dead.

Let the rest of the world fight it's own battles: WE ARE BROKE and it's no longer in our interests to have a world-wide military presence. In fact, it's hurting us more than helping us.

That would save America 1 trillion dollars a year: enough to pay off the deficit AND eliminate the Federal Income Tax......forever. And as Commander in Chief and a strict Constitutionalist, I think Dr. Paul could have pulled that off and the Supreme Court would have backed him up.

But despite the greatest grass roots political movement in US History, the mainstream press, working in concert, were able to get him labeled a wacko and marginalize him.

They were helped by his own Presidential Campaign Team which never took advantage of the grass roots support and Ron Paul himself, who in the end, seemed more interested in getting re-elected to Congress and keeping those ear-marks going to his congressional district.

And when that happened, I lost pretty much all interest in the primaries; thus my lack of enthusiastic posting on this Blog.

For the FIRST time in my life, I actually got involved in LOCAL politics. We had Good vs Evil in the Mayors race. Good won (I worked for his campaign). Of the two Council Member seats up for grabs (each with four contenders each), one candidate stood head and shoulders above the rest and won easily.

The second went to a run-off where the candidate I voted and campaigned for in the first election turned out to me MUCH less appealing after some due diligence. His opponent I'm not terribly excited about, but I voted and supported him for the run-off more because I didn't want his opponent to win than by my enthusiasm for him.

Mrs. Unloadingzone and I early voted: the actual election isn't until June 10th. We'll see what happens. The important thing for my home city is that the BEST BY 1000 MILES candidate won the Mayoral contest.

And this local run-off election for a City Council seat: that's what the Presidential Election is going to come down to for me: everything considered, who is the lesser of two really mediocre if not outright bad choices.

John McCain I've never been a fan of. In the Senate and even during the primaries, he's been all over the board on a host of issues and has never, compared to his contemporaries over the years, shown the leadership and steadfastness to be President. And I still remember the Keating Five.

Barack Obama, I initially gave the benefit of the doubt to. He was against Iraq, voted against it, period. No double talking. And after Hillary's (and many others who followed her lead) constant refrain of "I was for the war then, but now I'm against it because.........", Obama came off as at least genuine.

He was a huge unknown beyond that, but he kind of had that JFK appeal and if elected, he would either rise to occasion or not. But it looked like he had POTENTIAL. Until his dirty laundry started coming out. One day a Flag pin, the next no Flag pin.....then the Flag pin again. And what smoker/former smoker actually believes he quit cold turkey in one day and has NEVER had a cigarette again?

The whole thing with his Pastor's/Friend racist remarks: first he kind of defended the Pastor, not the remarks but in the end (and much too late) denounced the remarks and dumped his former lifetime friend, the Pastor.

And then the other inconsistencies I'm not going to bother repeating: after all, he's the nominee now. Why bother?

So we won the Iraqi war (like we didn't learn in the First Gulf War that the Iraqi military just turns and runs UNLESS it's a religion-based war (7 years of Iran-Iraq), and then completely blew the aftermath by firing the Iraqi bureaucracy and disbanding the Army.

And Iraq fell apart because we didn't LEARN that Islam and sect mean everything to the Iraqi's and the created State of Iraq meant nothing. That "American Democracy" was a foreign concept that we forced on them, they didn't understand, and weren't ready for.

IF we were going in to topple Saddam Hussain, (a big mistake) we could have least have learned from our own history: we needed a Douglas MacArthur to be dictator of Iraq for 7 years as we educated the Iraqi's on "American Democracy" And even that probably wouldn't have ultimately worked because in post-WWII Japan, we only had ONE deity to deal with: the Emperor.

In Iraq, we have two very distinct branches of one religion....and they HATE each other.

McCain first said we'll stay in Iraq for 100 years if necessary. Now he's back-tracking to a shorter time frame. And Obama, who said he would pull out the troops post-haste, is now being said to admit that we're going to be there for a while.

So what are either one of them actually going to do if elected President? No clue. But whatever they do; stay or leave quick, it will be the wrong decision. Because there IS no decision which allows the US to get out cleanly. Bush screwed the pooch on this one and now we're all screwed.

We have a half trillion dollar deficit but BOTH candidates are talking new programs, new spending........and America is broke going on bankrupt.

And lets not forget Hillary. She's not out of the picture by any means. She's the mainstream media's Vice Presidential pick for the "Dream Ticket".

But Obama doesn't seem to be too enthusiastic about that. But he does need her active support to beat McCain (isn't that pathetic?) So if not VP, then what? Not the cabinet. Not an ambassadorship....that's not enough for Hillary.

A promise in blood to be nominated to the first Supreme Court opening? That's something Hillary would LOVE: to have a life-time appointment as an Activist Supreme Court Justice. And it's more dangerous than ANY scenario other than her being President with a Democrat Congress. Maybe even more so.

We have our two choices: McCain and Obama. Between now and election day in November, both have some choices to make; like a running mate.

Between now and election day, they will finally be able to go at each other head to head without the Hillary distraction. I'll be listening to what both say, who both pick for VP, and see what more dirt comes out on both of them.

I'll watch the debates and see how and what they have to say. Then I will weigh all that, hold my nose, and vote for the man I hope will do the least amount of damage over the next 4 years. I have no illusion that EITHER of them will do America any good.

I don't like voting that way. I like voting for someone I support and believe in, not the lesser of two evils. But at the Presidential level, I've done it over the last four Presidential Elections. I guess I can force myself to do it one more time.

But I will vote for one of them. I will not take the cop-out approach of simply not voting. I was wrong with Bush, but who knows how the Democrat choices would have been? They could have even have been worse. Or not.

So you vote too. Forget political party: vote for who YOU think will be the lesser of two evils.

If America is going to continue it's decline into a bi-lingual, Second-rate, Superpower only by virtue of our rusting nuclear weapons, we have have the obligation to say we contributed to it.

After all, most of America has been too self-involved and too self-centered to really give a damn. And so the politicos ran amok with our blessing. Now the chickens have come home to roost...if they can get a mortgage.

John McCain and Barack Obama. Who would have thought America would sink so low?

Technorati Tags:"ron paul", 2008 election, barack obama, "john mccain", john mccain, democrat, election 2008, hillary, hillary clinton, iran, iraq, iraq war, japan, obama, presidential election, republican, ron paul,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us Tags:"ron paul", 2008 election, barack obama, "john mccain", john mccain, democrat, election 2008, hillary, hillary clinton, iran, iraq, iraq war, japan, obama, presidential election, republican, ron paul,
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Obama, Driver's Licenses, and this Immigration MESS

OK, lets see if I've got this right: In order to combat illegal immigration, the Federal Government came one step closer to mandating a National ID Card by instructing the States to come up with "tamper-proof, difficult to counterfeit, "secure" Driver's Licenses. Like all things regarding Federal immigration directives, the requirements are confusing, the mandate unfunded, and the implementation date is fluid.

Never the less, many States are making the effort, incorporating holograms, magnetic strips, special inks and other methods to make their Drivers Licenses more secure....and all at their own expense.

Why are they bothering? If we wake up on January 21, 2009 to an Obama administration, illegal aliens will be issued Drivers Licenses by Presidential decree! That's right, Obama is 100% in favor of issuing US Drivers Licenses to illegal aliens!

At least Hillary is against it after she was for it: the reason being the massive public outrage by her liberal New York constituents.

What is Obama possibly thinking? Let us break down the issue into it's simpler parts.


Security: Why did the Federal Government mandate the secure driver's licenses? Because Driver's Licenses are the closest thing we have to a National Identity Card (NIC) without calling it a National Identity Card (which the people, the ACLU, and the activists groups would never stand for). You can use a Driver's License to cash a check, buy alcohol, rent a car, VOTE, rent an apartment, get a credit card...a whole host of things. And since almost all the 50 driver's licenses out there contain the same vital information a National Identity Card would, it's a backdoor way to establish a NIC without causing an uproar.

So Why Would Obama want to give de facto NICs to Illegal Aliens? I have absolutely no idea. It makes absolutely no sense. It's an insane waste of money by the States for absolutely no purpose. Unless of course, it's the same reason we have bi-lingual voting ballots even though only American Citizens are allowed to vote and in order to be a naturalized citizen, you must be able to demonstrate proficiency in English speaking, reading, and writing. One plausible reason to issue Illegal Aliens Driver's Licenses is to make it easier for them to vote, which is of course illegal. But illegal voting has never bothered either party for centuries...so long as it was in their favor. So Obama would be trying to buy Democrats.

Road Safety: Each State has it's own little quirks, but by and large, all American drivers are taught how to drive the same way and take the same general tests upon receiving their first Driver's License. That's why when I moved from the North East to Texas, I simply handed them my out-of-state license and they issued me a Texas Driver's License with the same permissions and restrictions. Does Mexico even issue Driver's Licenses? What's the testing criteria? Does it include how to read American road signs? To stop when a school bus has it's lights on? To drive on the right side of the road? Issuing Driver's Licenses to illegals without stringent instruction and testing makes the roads safer HOW? And who is going to give the instruction? I haven't seen any ads for bi-lingual Drivers Ed instructors? And who is going to pay for this bi-lingual instruction? Another unfunded mandate from the Feds.

So Why Would Obama want to give Driver's Licenses to Illegal Aliens? The easy answer is to curry favor with the Hispanic/Latino community to buy Democrat votes and supporters. It's probably true too, but lets look further. Lets look at the trucking and courier industries: multi-billion dollars hubs of our economy. Gas prices are going up. The Carriers can't afford to absorb the increases. Obama didn't say just Class A Drivers Licenses (cars): he just said "Driver's Licenses". Why not Class C licenses? CDL's? Why not supply the transportation industry of this country with a pool of millions of low skilled, poorly trained, but able to be very poorly paid, truck drivers? Safety be damned, the trucks must roll on....and not at the expense of Big Oil, of course. So bring in the underpaid illegal truck drivers.....God help us all.

Will Giving Illegal Aliens Driver's Licenses make them More Inclined to Buy Car Insurance? No. Of course not. They don't respect or follow our laws already. They don't buy car insurance already. What a silly question for me to ask myself. But you can expect YOUR insurance rates to go through the roof as millions more uninsured Hispanic drivers (literally) hit the road (and you).

So Why is Barack Obama so Intent on Giving Illegal Aliens Driver's Licenses? I looked on his Official Campaign Site and couldn't find the answer (it's not the best indexed site though, so I may have missed it). Folks, you're going to have to figure this one out on your own. Aside from pandering to the Hispanic community, there is not ONE GOOD ANSWER that makes any kind of sense.

Back in the 1960's and 70's, liberal, socialist college students discovered they were pretty much all unemployable in the real world....except as teachers and text book writers...and lawyers. They started the idea that Diversity, not The Melting Pot, was the secret to America's success. And generations passed and today's students actually believe that Diversity translated as the Balkenization of America is how it's always been and how it always should be. As we parents went about our lives blindly assuming that our children were being taught the same civics and American History that we had been, two entire generations were brainwashed.

I had a Hispanic high school student write me (in very bad English) recently asking why I was being so HATEFUL (1st amendment good unless someone offended). She said, (and I'm cleaning up her English) because America is all about Diversity; and why should she give up her language and culture for ME? She also commented that (illegal) Hispanics she knew in Advanced Placement Classes were doing well, so Hispanics were not stupid. I gently reminded her that those AP students were STEALING their education from tax paying Americans. And that maybe some American children didn't make it into the class because the ILLEGAL students took their place. She was fine with that because, like the overwhelming majority of illegals, especially from Mexico, in this country, they feel they have the RIGHT to take from us whatever they can get. The feel they deserve it (I don't know why) and simply because they want a better life than the one they had in Mexico (who can blame them), they can simply walk across the border and TAKE whatever health care, jobs, education and social services they like.....because they WANT to. They have no qualms with breaking OUR laws but God-Forbid you question them or (gasp) try and STOP them! Then WE are the cruel, HATEFUL ones.

And the REAL QUESTION for Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, and (depending on the day) Mrs Clinton, is WHY ARE YOU HELPING THEM DO IT? Forget the Presidency, as SENATORS, how could you sit back and BETRAY the United States Citizens and the Constitution you SWORE to uphold? ALL of you should be ashamed and NONE of you deserves the Presidency.

Technorati Tags:barack obama, democrat, election 2008, hillary clinton, hispanic, illegal aliens, illegal immigration, republican, socialist, http://www.technorati.com/tag/www.neaju.com,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us Tags:barack obama, democrat, election 2008, hillary clinton, hispanic, illegal aliens, illegal immigration, republican, socialist, http://del.icio.us/mr_unloadingzone/www.neaju.com,
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Side by Side Comparison of all the Candidates Positions

This website has an easy to read, side by side comparison of all the Presidential candidates with links to sources.

Someone did a GREAT job of laying it all out. A MUST visit for everyone voting in the Presidential primaries. Click on the Title to be taken to the comparision.

Technorati Tags:hillary, "ron paul", barack obama, edwards, rudy giuliani, republican, mike huckabee, john mccain, mitt romney, democrat
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
del.icio.us Tags:hillary, "ron paul", barack obama, edwards, rudy giuliani, republican, mike huckabee, john mccain, mitt romney, democrat
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Iowa: A Victory for "Anybody but Hillary" !

Anyone reading the title of this blog can pretty quickly pick up the fact I don't like (and in-fact am terrified of) a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

So it was not without some trepidation I picked up my morning paper. First relief: Omaba had won (don't like his policies, but he's the best chance of beating Hillary on the Democrat side). And then came the icing on the cake: Hillary didn't win, she didn't even come in second. SHE CAME IN THIRD!

Of course the Clinton camp is doing everything they can, which isn't much, to downplay the loss. And they're back on message, if not a little harsher: “We can’t have false hopes,” Hillary told Reuters. “We’ve got to have a person who can walk into that Oval office on day one and start doing the hard work that it takes to deliver change.”

So now Obama is a "false hope". Gee Hillary, that's not a very nice thing to say. I thought we were running a positive campaign?

And notice how she dropped the words "deliver change" into her message. Now she's the policy wonk who knows the White House like the back of her hand, but can "deliver change". She's talking out of both sides of her mouth again....somethings never change.

And I'm still waiting to hear why exactly she thinks she can walk into the Oval Office on Day 1 and start work. Granted, she won't need a tour or have to ask where the bathrooms are. She also knows exactly where in the White House bedroom the congressionally "requested" papers which had been missing for years mysteriously just "showed up" one day?

Other than being a figure-head first lady with visions of Universal Health Care dancing through her head, how is she the only one ready for Day 1? John Edwards is a Senator too and has more experience in Congress than Hillary. Why can't he take a 5 minute tour and get down to work?

And what if the Bush people vandalized the White House the way the Clinton's did when they left...taking keys off of keyboards, disconnecting phones, etc. That would put a crimp in Day 1.

On the Republican side, a huge loss for Romney considering the time and money he spent in Iowa, a big win for Huckabee, who for some reason, seems capable to me of doing a Republican version of Howard Dean on himself and goodbye Rudy.

But to me, the big (and predictably way under-reported) story was that Ron Paul got 10% of the votes. In contrast, Rudy only got 3%. Thompson and McCain only received 13% or 3% more than Ron Paul. And aside from what he paid for, Paul received little if any media attention at all. Not a bad showing at all, considering. And while Fox is still banning Paul from their Presidential Debate, ABC news has just announced Paul will be included in theirs. Interesting.

New Hampshire is next and that will be a lot more telling than Iowa. They're an independent bunch up there (did you know New Hampshire has no State or Sales taxes?). And while Iowa was a caucus, New Hampshire will be the first true primary of 2008.

Will the Iowa results hold? Will Romney make a comeback? Will Hillary be able to come across as the policy wonk of change? We'll know in less than a week.

As to my preference, it is, as always, Anyone But Hillary in 2008!

Sincerely, Mr. Unloadingzone

Technorati Tags:2008 election, iowa caucus, new hampshire primary, anyone but hillary, anti-hillary, barack obama, democrat, rudy, hillary clinton, mike huckabee, missing documents, mitt romney, ron paul, republican
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us Tags:2008 election, iowa caucus, new hampshire primary, anyone but hillary, anti-hillary, barack obama, democrat, rudy, hillary clinton, mike huckabee, missing documents, mitt romney, ron paul, republican
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Alternatives to Hillary: If We Don't Vote for Hillary, who SHOULD we Vote For?

This blog is named Anyone But Hillary in 2008. It's named that for a reason: I am absolutely convinced that Hillary Clinton is motivated purely by personal ambition; that she has an agenda going back to the 1960's that would end America as we know it. She can sound tough, but if (when) another 9/11 hits, she is not the one I want nor do I feel is capable of calling the shots. And that's just one issue. Here being for, and then against, most major issues makes her had to quantify and reinforces my position that she will say and do anything to become President. In a nutshell, I think she's a liberal, globalist, ideologue who will say anything and do anything to become President. I just don't trust her and her record has given me no reason to start trusting her now.

That being said, "Anyone" But Hillary in 2008 is a little simplistic. The American people are going to elect "Someone" President of the United States in 2008. Other than Hillary we have a mixed bag to choose from and some new themes to look at.

The candidates range from professional, business as usual politicians to some more unique characters. In terms of themes, the most blatant is Big Government versus Small Government, because the candidate's position on this theme will reflect in their position on every other issue before us.

At the one end you have Hillary Clinton: Big Government, more government interference in your everyday lives, redistribution of wealth, subordinating our Nation Interests to the United Nations.........

On the other end you have Ron Paul (DON'T make the mistake of writing him off). He is for substantially smaller Government, less government involvement in our lives, an end to America being the policeman of the planet.........

And in between, we have a plethora of candidates who lean one way or the other to varying degrees on one issue here, another issue there.

SOMEWHERE in this group there must be someone worth voting FOR, not simply against Hillary (as vital as that is). My next series of posts is going to compare different candidates against Hillary to try and determine, Republican or Democrat, who is the best Presidential choice for 2008.

I freely admit it is VERY early to be doing this and so-called "front-runner" status is not going to come into play that much for obvious reasons. You need only look to the Republicans where Rudy Guiliani was "destined" to be the GOP candidate.....and suddenly is ranked number three behind Mitt Romney and New Front runner Mike Huckabee. At least until next week.

On the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton was the "clear" front runner by 20 to 30% and more over everyone. Now the pollsters are saying it's neck and neck between Hillary and Barack Obama in New Hampshire. At least until next week.

Not all issues will be covered in each post; as with all my blogs, it's what interests me that's important. I will be relying primarily on what each candidate has had to say versus what editorial writers extrapolate from that. These posts will be fact based as much as it's possible to be fact based when discussing politicians in general. The only editorializing will come from me and I will try to keep that to a minimum.....but knowing myself, it will be impossible NOT to comment on some of the candidates positions, Republican and Democrat alike.

In the interests of perspective and full disclosure, I will tell you that I'm a political agnostic now. I used to be a Republican, but if the scandals, missteps, and outright mismanagement of the Republican Congress starting 1n 1993 were the nails in the coffin, George W. Bush has been the hammer that banged them in. In fact, I wrote an article on my other blog, The Unloading Zone, entitled "A (until recently) Republican is forced to ask "When did George W. Bush Go Insane?"

The George W. Bush I knew as the Great Uniter of Texas is no where to be seen and hasn't been since 9/11. I honestly think the man may have lost his mind.

So I go into this inherently distrusting ALL the candidates....there will be no party favoritism here. As the weeks go by, I hope you find these articles informative and insightful. If you do or don't, please feel free to comment. For the purposes of this series, I will lift my ban on pro-Hillary posts (although I may comment back to you). All comments will be approved.

I'll be alternating between Democrat and Republican candidates. Because he interests me the most at this point, the first article in this series will be a comparison of Hillary to Barack Obama. Stay tuned................

Technorati Tags:2008 election, anti-hillary, anyone but hillary, big government, democrat, george w. bush, hillary, hillary clinton, republican, ron paul, rudy giuliani, presidential election, mike huckabee, small government
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

del.icio.us Tags:2008 election, anti-hillary, anyone but hillary, big government, democrat, george w. bush, hillary, hillary clinton, republican, ron paul, rudy giuliani, presidential election, mike huckabee, small government
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Dick Armey: Why I Think Hillary Will Win

Below is an article and reader comments on the piece written by Dick Armey, Chairman of FreedomWorks.


It's entitled "Why I think Hillary will Win" and is very enlightening, but not in the way Mr. Armey thought. Much of what he says about Hillary is dead-on true; that's not my issue with this article. Mr Armey's intent was to scare the Republican base into action. Instead, it shows how Mr. Armey and his fellows are still living in 1993 and have completely wiped from their mind the damage a Republican Congress and our current Republican President have done to the cause. Before I present Mr. Armey's article, I wanted you to see one of the reader comments which I think sums up the whole problem for Mr. Armey's position and the Republican Party:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Vance Shannon from Mesquite, NV 2007-11-16

Dear Mr. Armey, Your comments about the GOP and their propensity to spend our money are dead on target. GOP spending excesses led to their loss of congressional control last year. Other major factors leading to the GOP congressional losses was their failure to secure our border and their support for amnesty leading to citizenship for illegal immigrants. I've address these three issues to GOP congressional members in my state. I've also sent several such notices to the RNC and other forums. Yet, many GOP congressional members continue to support big government programs and more amnesty programs. Why should those of us who favor border security, no amnesty for illegal immigrants, private social security accounts, smaller government, less government spending and less taxes support the GOP? They do NOT deserve our support! Unless the GOP alters their support for issues proposed by congressional democrats, there will be more losses for them in next year's election. Failure to adopt a backbone and support conservative principles will lead to a Clinton presidency with a huge congressional democrat majority. Sincerely, C. Vance Shannon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now, Mr. Armey's copywrited article from Freedom Works:

FreedomWorks
http://www.freedomworks.org/
November 13, 2007

Why I Think Hillary Will Win
The former House Majority Leader looks at the issues debate in the presidential campaign.

If the 2008 presidential election were held today, Hillary Rodham Clinton would win.

Hillary’s minor stumbles in the MSNBC debate notwithstanding, she is simply running the most disciplined and effective campaign. She’s one of the most able politicians in America, and no one should underestimate her desire to be President and her calculating focus.

What you need to understand is that Hillary Clinton is, quite simply, craftier and more aggressive than the rest of the field. I know this firsthand, having battled with the Clinton Administration throughout the 1990’s while serving as a leader in Congress.

She’s only gotten tougher since then.

Early on, there were many fights, but one of the most important was over Hillary Clinton’s 1993 plan to expand government control of the health-care system. We were lucky to stop it, and we did so by standing our ground on the principle of putting patients ahead of bureaucracies. But now she’s back, and the health-care issue is a perfect example of the way she’s learned on the job and evolved her tactics.

Her latest health-care plan is more of the same stuff—greater federal control of our lives—but this time she’s presenting it in a way that is far more politically savvy. She leaves open questions of funding and enforcement, and is actively working to buy off the groups who opposed her plan in 1993.

Hillary Clinton and her agenda are not going to fade away. She is relentless and determined. Once she resolves a course of action in her mind, she is not going to be wishy-washy. The other candidates, and the rest of the world, will quickly learn that Hillary Clinton means business.

No doubt, Hillary Clinton has the Democrat primary all wrapped up. A couple of one-term senators are simply no match for the political machine she and her husband have built. I won’t go so far as to say that it’s not possible for a Republican to defeat her in the general election. But as things stand today, the GOP has a very real set of problems that are larger than any of the party’s candidates.

First and foremost, the Republican brand as effective stewards of the taxpayer dollar is in tatters, and the shredding doesn’t look to stop any time soon. Just last week, 138 House Republicans joined the Democrats in voting to override the president’s veto of a wasteful and pork-ridden Water Resources bill. That vote was a shameful display of personal politics over the national interest, and it contains the seeds of destruction of whatever conservative principles remain in the Republican party.

The callow accommodation to big-spending Democrats in Congress is one of the ways the Republican party will return itself to the days of serving as a compliant, permanent minority. Happy for table scraps, elected Republicans will simply abandon the ideas of their party in order to “get along”.

No wonder Americans prefer Democrats on the economy, taxes, and spending issues, according to recent polling data. When the choice is between Democrats, and the Democrat-lite ideas the GOP has become so comfortable offering, the Democrats will win every time.

The only way the Republican party will beat Hillary Clinton is to return to its limited-government roots. That’s the only way to rebuild a majority coalition.

For example, today religious conservatives are confused, disillusioned, and somewhat fractured. Too many of the current crop of self-appointed social conservative leaders have embraced an agenda that splits the GOP coalition. Big government ideas— runaway spending on “conservative” social programs, social engineering in the tax code, and greater government intervention into Americans’ personal lives—are the wrong path. This pandering has hurt the GOP in swing states, especially in the Mountain West and Great Lakes states.

To counter Hillary Clinton’s perfectly oiled political machine, Republicans need to return to their Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan roots. They need to present an alternative vision for America—a positive vision that limits government and trusts individuals and leaves families, churches, and businesses free to make their own decisions, and not have bureaucrats and politicians calling the shots.

Right now, the country is headed toward a date with Hillary Clinton, and big government is on the agenda. The only way to change that rendezvous is for candidates to offer a clear, principled, limited government alternative.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
READER COMMENTS
Emiliano Antunez from Miami, FL
2007-11-16

I have respect for Mr. Armey's career in the house, it somewhat resembled Ron Pauls. This letter is very correct in its analysis. I voted for Ronald Reagan and remember that of the very few congressmen that supported him in 1976 one was Ron Paul. Today all the candidates are frantically trying to wrest the Reagan mantle; Rudy (Pro Gun control and very agressively anti-business as a prosecutor), Thompson (Very talented actor and Lawyer but is more of the same), Romney (has Reaganesque hair but that's about it, too slick for his own good), McCain (Campaign Finance "Reform" and his own campaign finances are in the red enough said), and Huckabee (it's 2007 and he still doubts the science pointing too evolution, plus what good christian would even consider a "pre-emptive" nuclear strike that would murder millions). Needless to say I will be voting for the most balanced and truely "conservative" candidate Ron Paul.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Onweller from Evergreen, CO
2007-11-16

You are probably right as of today. However, it is still eleven months to the election. Hillary and Bill will have to explain why all their correspondence and documents are locked away until 2011. Will the media force them to release the documents before the election. "What's so important that they are sealed?" will be the call. Can Hillary capture more of the independent vote to replace the negro vote that she will lose when the Democratic Party shoves Obama out of the way? No, they will stay home. Putting Richerson in as VP won't do any good as it will be remembered that he put civil rights in other countries ahead of our national security interests. True, the Republicans have to get their act together. But the old GOP guard is retiring and new vigorious GOP candidates are emerging in key States. At the National level, a strong team, not just one candidate, will take the day. We need to focus on our principles into campaign slogans. People are being taxed more and more each day for all sorts of reasons. We need to FOCUS!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Vance Shannon from Mesquite, NV
2007-11-16

Dear Mr. Armey, Your comments about the GOP and their propensity to spend our money are dead on target. GOP spending excesses led to their loss of congressional control last year. Other major factors leading to the GOP congressional losses was their failure to secure our border and their support for amnesty leading to citizenship for illegal immigrants. I've address these three issues to GOP congressional members in my state. I've also sent several such notices to the RNC and other forums. Yet, many GOP congressional members continue to support big government programs and more amnesty programs. Why should those of us who favor border security, no amnesty for illegal immigrants, private social security accounts, smaller government, less government spending and less taxes support the GOP? They do NOT deserve our support! Unless the GOP alters their support for issues proposed by congressional democrats, there will be more losses for them in next year's election. Failure to adopt a backbone and support conservative principles will lead to a Clinton presidency with a huge congressional democrat majority. Sincerely, C. Vance Shannon



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim from Houston, TX
2007-11-16

The Republicans have squandered 7 years of opportunity to realistically deal with healthcare and have paid more attention to pharmacy, insurance and healthcare lobbyists than the needs of the citizens. Costs are too high, too many people do not have realistic access to basic healthcare and a lot of people are saying anything is better than the status quo. Now we face the potential of Hillarycare. What a disaster!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert House from Midland, MI
2007-11-16

Hillary WILL WIN because a majority of Americans believe there really is a free lunch (health care).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harriet from Stuart, FL
2007-11-16

I am not going to beat around the bush on this one, any person, dem or rep. who votes for illegals and decides that there should be more then the English language here, does not deserve to be elected to anything. This election is going to be tuff enough, but to know that 33 senators voted against English as our language has got to go and that includes Obama, clinton, and several others. It's totally wrong, you want to be head honcho, then make illegals, illegal and English our language. Ancestors had to learn english and apply to come here why can't the cubans, why wet foot, dry foot deal and everyone else sent back to their country. Something is wrong here and it needs to get straight before anything else get's done. No Social Security for these people, plus the government needs to put the money back they borrowed from there and quit using it in their budget it is not their money, we the american people worked for it. It's our's not the governments. Why can't we fight for what is ours and quit giving it to others. Americans first and foremost, that is what needs to be asked and get done first. we will get out of Iraq and we will get health insurance, but these other two things have got to get resolved and I think these issues should come at the top. I would like a straight answer from our senators about both, illegals and social security.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wahl from Blaine, WA
2007-11-16

I just cannot stand that woman..........period! I will write in a candidate before I vote for her! Is the general public so caught up in being politically correct, and the government so intent on trying to get her elected, that it has everybody running scared! Is it any wonder this country has been going down the tubes, well, electing her is not doing this land of ours any favers.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Puerling from Prairie du Sac, WI
2007-11-16

Well Congressman, that's an incredibly depressing point of view. I dearly hope, for the country's sake, that you are wrong. I also hope you are working your magic behind the scenes to focus our Republican candidates on the need to return to their conservative roots. God help us if this woman gets elected.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donna from Calabash, NC
2007-11-16

We must join together, and get behind the nominee of the Republican Party. This is an election that we cannot afford to lose. Look at what how we got together to defeat the Immigration Bill that President Bush wanted. If there is something that the next Republican President wants to do that we, the people, do not agree with, we make our feelings known. I call or email my Senators and Congressmen all the time. We must take an active part in our Government. Rudy, Mitt, John, Fred, Mike, and yes even Ron Paul, would make superior candidates over Hillary. Hillary has the machine behind her, and it is a powerful machine. Do you want this Country handed over to George Soros and Moveon.org? Do you want this Country turned into a socialist government? I am 50 years old, and this woman (Hillary) scares me to my core. We must do everything in our power, and that is our vote, to make sure this woman does not became President, not for 4 years, not even for a day.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LD from Flower Mound, TX
2007-11-15

Oh well, I also remember when Dick Armey confidently predicted that his son Scott would easily inherit his congressional seat after he retired. His comments about Hillary Clinton actually made her sound pretty good. Traits like "disciplined, effective, one of the most able politicians in America, calculating focus, aggressive, tougher, learned on the job, evolved her tactics, relentless, determined, not wishy-washy, means business, etc. Maybe if our GOP candidates had some of these characteristics, they wouldn't need to be so worried.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ken from Duncansville, PA
2007-11-14

Dick Army's column rings loud and clear. If you notice he does not wildly prophecy the future from an ideology but builds his outlook on historical reality. Mrs. Clinton is not a bad choice because she is a democrat or because she is a woman, or even because she is Bill Clinton's wife. She is a bad choice because she will push for more government and less individual freedom and responsibility. She is a bad choice because she is obligated to many self interest groups and will eventually have to pay up for their support. She is a bad choice because her lust for personal power far exceeds her principled patriotism.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hessler from Unv Hts, OH
2007-11-14

If Hillary wins will that make Bill "The First Lady's Man"?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey from Ames, IA
2007-11-14

Republicans do not vote for the Republican candidate, no matter what, they either vote or not. Look at recent history. Our current President won running against terrible candidates, selected based on their percieved liklihood of winning. Ross Perot (percieved as more fiscally responsible than Bush1 or Dole) elected Clinton1 by splitting Republicans. Reagan won landslides as an extreme fiscal conservative, not social. Hillary (with Obama or Ewards as VP) will win because no one will show up to vote for Mitt, Rudy, or John. The path to Republican victory is extreme fiscal & monetary conservatism, social moderation, novel (constitutional) foreign policy, hardline (but rational) immigration views, and definable differences from both Hillary and Neoconservatism. Huckabee and Thompson are better candidates than Mitt, Rudy, or John, but Ron Paul is the only candidate that will beat her, for the above reasons and because he will motivate traditional and new voters by offering them a real, pro-active choice. The only demographics that will show up to vote for Hillary, and against Ron, are Social Security addicts that don't understand how they are being robbed by our current monetary policies and the hardcore pro-Abortion crowd. Ron has her beat on every other issue that motivates voters. In politics, supporting the front runner because they are perceived as more likely to win is suicide. Remember your ABC's?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey from Ames, IA
2007-11-14

Ron Paul beats Hillary on every issue that motivates voters to show up except for the hardcore pro-abortion crowd and SocSecurity addicts that don't understand how our current monetary policies are robbing them.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Richardson from Al Asad AB, AE
2007-11-14

Hillary will win because Republicans fail to support the only conservative in the primary field - Ron Paul.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark from bradenton, FL
2007-11-14

Amazing that the tax and spend label comes out for the democrats, yet that is exactly what Bush has done for allthese years. The republicans dont understand common people, or they dont want to. Thats why despite RUSH, BECK , Hannity ,etc and their pleading to people to vote republican, they lost the house and senate. Now they are doing the same for Guiliani who is a crook, criminal and an extension of the BUSH doctrine. Heck no, I will vote democratic regardless who the nominee is, and I WAS a republican!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric from Houston, TX
2007-11-14

Dick Armey is reading my mind. He's saying what I've been telling my friends. Republicans are losing because they're not doing what they were elected to do: limit government in our lives. They get to Washington and all they can think about is the power and how to hold on to it. They lose their morals. We need to send all of these Congress members home looking for other jobs. Hillary is playing on the growing entitlement mentality, which will eventually lead our country to socialism. If she's elected, it'll happen sooner than later. I'm afraid that's going to be the case.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard B. Boddie from Huntington Beach, CA
2007-11-14

And you clearly describe your former colleague Dr. Ron Paul as the ONLY person who can beat Billary. That's of course, if after he wins the GOP nomination he doesn't have "an accident" or get bladder cancer like Aaron Russo did (after distributing "America:From Freedom to Fascism"). This is the most important presidential election in my life, and I'm old.... But as Dennis Miller always said, But I could be wrong. ~ RBB Crazy African American Libertarian (an endangered species)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R Glan from San Jose, CA
2007-11-14

Afraid to post my last message. Too much truth?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FreedomWorks : Making Good Policy Good Politics
601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, North Building, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 783-3870 Fax: (202) 942-7649 Toll Free: 1-888-564-6273

Technorati Tags:mr. unloadingzone, freedom works, dick armey, hillary clinton, republican, democrat, big government, election 2008
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Hillary, the Most Decisive, Indecisive Person on the Planet

Writing about Hillary can be so tiring. She is a caricature of a politician. She's famous for phrases like "I support the concept, but don't endorse it" I thought Bill Clinton was poll driven but Hillary takes the cake.

One the recent drivers licenses for illegal aliens in NY issue, she supported the "broad" concept of issuing these criminal invaders legitimate NY identification documents, but when the polls came back 70% opposed and NY Governor Spitzer's approval rating dropped to an all-time low, Hillary was suddenly "strongly opposed" to the issuing illegals drivers licenses.

With the exception of Universal Health care, which is a terrible idea that would bankrupt the nation and ruin our health care system, Hillary answers every single issue with an equivocal answer until the polls come in; then she takes a position.

She doesn't go as far as to say "It's because I'm a girl", but every time she is criticised by her opponents, it's never because of her stance on an issue: it's always "personal".

Last night in Los Vegas was no exception. As soon as Obama and Edwards began accusing her of flip-flopping and never taking a stand until the polls were in, Hillary struck back with charges of "personal attacks" and "talking out of the Republican playbook". Of course, when she accused Obama of not supporting Universal Health Care, leaving millions of children (she's big on dropping "children" into attacks), that wasn't personal at all.

This is a woman who says she's the only one qualified to "hit the ground running on day 1 of her Presidency". Really. She does know how to get to the Oval Office without any assistance. In fact, during Bill Clinton's Presidency, I often wondered when he was out of the country if she sneaked into the Oval Office, sat in his chair, and pretended she was President. I can see her conducting imaginary staff meetings and sit-downs with Heads of State.

Other than that, she was First Lady. She has no experience at being President and her so-called Senate experience has her flip-flopping or equivocating on so many issues, you only know two core beliefs she has: Universal Healthcare and that she should be President. That's it.

Hillary Clinton is a caricature of a politician. A joke. You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to support her. Fifty percent of the American public said they would never vote for her under any circumstances. She's an obvious fraud who will say anything to any group at any time in an effort to get their votes. All this is documented and public. And she scares the death out of me.

Because with all this being said, she is the Democrat front runner at this point. With all the baggage, negative publicity, and an obvious lack of any qualifications whatsoever, she was able to waltz into New York, a liberal but cynical state, calming proclaim that she was now a New Yorker, and win a New York Senate seat. Wow.

All the scandals which had touched her personally: the cattle futures windfall, the missing documents which suddenly appeared in the White House bedroom, the mystery of Vince Foster, her secret Health Care commission....even where and how the Clinton's got the $5 million for the house in New York. All that didn't matter. It was all fresh in every one's mind then and she still won the Senate seat. Wow.

So until I see her lifeless head stuck on a pole and paraded through the streets by torchlight, I am unconvinced the demon is dead. Until someone else....ANYONE else, is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States, I won't count her out, won't underestimate her or overestimate the voting acumen of the American public. Hillary has secret powers at her disposal. The witch is not dead.

Technorati Tags:mr. unloadingzone, 2008 presidential election, anyone but hillary, driver's licenses, cattle futures, democrat, edwards, elliot spitzer, flip-flop, hillary-care, missing couments, obama, republican, universal healthcare, ny, new york, new york senate, demon-possessed, illegal aliens
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Hillary versus Rudy versus Mr. Unloadingzone on Healthcare

Illegal Immigration is only one of the key hot-button issues in the 2008 Presidential Elections. Health care is another big one in which Hillary and Rudy could not be further apart.

Rudy comes out swinging in his new ad "Chance". He talks about his own bout with prostrate cancer. He credits his survival in large part to the American System of Medicine which has an 82% success rate against prostrate cancer as opposed to a 44% survival rate in socialized medicine Great Britain.

The gist of his message is that the free market will always do a better job than governments, both in delivery of service and in cost. He uses plasma TVs and Lasik eye surgery as examples.

His solution is a $15,000 tax deduction for families and a $7500 tax deduction for individuals to go out and buy their own insurance. The positive is that Rudy is coming out strong against government and corporate-sponsored health care. The negative is that a tax deduction is not money in your pocket; it's money deducted from your taxable earnings. With the price of individual health care coverage being what it is today, those deductions are just not going to cover the bill except for the most basic of health care.

Hillary, on the other hand, is absolutely convinced that all the problems and costs associated with health care today are the Fault of the free market. Her mantra that a government-run, limited selection, and few health care choices; are a worthy trade-off for providing health coverage to all Americans.

I personally think Rudy's opinion is the correct one, but his solution will come up short. Hillary doesn't see people as individuals but as groups, so it's difficult for her to grasp why socialized medicine is failing in the countries that practice it but is correct in thinking non-standardization is part of the problem. She is also correct in having a low opinion of the way most insurance companies operate. The medical arena is no different to them than their home, car, or life insurance business. And when have your premiums on those ever gone down?

Another issue which no one addresses directly but is the big white elephant in the room is that every American expects the absolute best in medical care when they need it for a low, low price, but don't really understand the costs involved in delivering that care. Long gone are the days the family doctor would show up for a house call with his little medical bag, containing everything he needed.

Does the average person have any idea what an MRI machine costs? Much less than they used to when they first came out, of course, but new state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment equipment is coming out all the time. It significantly increases the quality of our health-care which Rudy demonstrates in his "Chance" ad, but it does come at a price. Today you can get an MRI same day if needed. In Canada, it can be up to a nine month wait.

So what can we do to ensure high quality care at a lower cost? Today's doctors, hospitals and insurance companies spend an enormous amount of money on administrative staffs trying to keep up with the different rules, forms and paperwork, and reimbursements of the different insurance plans and companies. The bureaucracy in medicine is here already even without Hillary-Care, and it's sucking up billions of dollars.

Law-makers, Doctors, Insurance Companies, and Lawyers need to sit down and agree to fair, yet sane, medical malpractice laws. Many doctors are giving up high-risk fields such as OBY/GN because their malpractice insurance premiums are bankrupting them. And the American people are going to have to get over this "victim" mentality and stop looking at a malpractice lawsuit as a winning lottery ticket. Doctors are human. Mistakes can happen. Unless there is provable gross negligence or incompetence, a doctor's humanity should not be a ticket to the bank....and he shouldn't have to pay outrageous malpractice premiums to protect against being human. Can anyone reading this honestly say they've never made a mistake at work? The only difference between you and your doctor is that he is working in a much more demanding and risky field.

Doctors and all the Insurance Companies need to sit down and first standardize, then simplify, their administrative protocols. Something as simple as standardizing diagnostic codes would save millions. The insurance companies pay a huge amount of money to administer their programs so they have a vested interest in this as well.

Imagine a handful of mega-clearance centers, supported by all the insurance companies, which would process all claims. The savings through the economy of scale alone would be huge. Insurance companies would still be able to offer the plethora of plans and coverage that Americans demand, but at a much lower cost.

And the "group plan" concept must be expanded to include the American Citizen Population as one group. No more charging for pre-existing conditions or so-called risky behavior. No more policy cancellations because a person has had one condition too many. Spreading the risk over 300MM+ Americans is going to result in much less expensive coverage than spreading the risk over a few thousand employee group plan.

Government would have a role too. The primary is oversight: we are a capitalistic society but, like car and home-owners insurance, there needs to be a watchdog to balance profit against gouging....and at the same time make sure there IS a profit because this is America; because businesses reinvest their profits in new products and services (which means even better health care); because Doctors start out hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical school debt, not to mention the cost of outfitting and staffing an office. Either everyone wins or everyone loses.

The Government would also have the responsibility of moving citizens off of Medicare and Medicaid and onto private policies. With the prices of health care policies now so much lower, only a fraction of the money spent today on Medicare and Medicaid would be needed to subsidize poor Americans. I stress the word "Americans" here. Illegal aliens, while theoretically could buy health insurance I suppose, should not receive one dime in tax-payer money towards health care. They should not be here in the first place and the only money spent on them should be to deport them. If their home countries have socialized medicine, they can take advantage of it. If they don't, then let their home countries subsidize their care. It is not our responsibility; not our obligation; not our duty.

The only purpose this Government-Insurance Company-Medical Community collaboration has is to provide as many Americans as possible the best possible health care at the lowest possible price; and do it in a market environment. It is obtainable if all parties stick to this mission. Absolutely obtainable BUT only if all parties have the same goal with no extraneous add-ons like subsidies for illegal aliens. No subsidies for Americans who chose not to invest in their own health-care and suddenly have an emergency.

Americans can have the best medical care at an affordable price. It's just a matter of will.

Technorati Tags:anyone but hillary in 2008, mr.unloadingzone, http://anyonebuthillaryin2008.blogspot.com, 2008 election, anyone but hillary, bureaucracy, democrat, doctors, hillary care, hillary clinton, hillary-care, illegal aliens, insurance companies, medicine, republican, rudy giuliani, universal healthcare
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Now is NOT the time for Ron Paul

Ron Paul has some great ideas and positions. He might even make a good President someday. But idea's and policies are NOT what the 2008 Presidential Election is all about.

The Republicans controlled Congress through most of the last 13 years and the Presidency for the last 7. And what did we conservatives get in return? Sex scandals, forced resignations, bloated budgets, a botched after-"victory" policy in Iraq, bankruptcy "reform" favoring businesses over the individual. We got pork, and lots of it. We got higher taxes with more on the way. In short, we got business as usual in Washington.

The 2008 Presidential Election is not about ideas or philosophies. It's about one thing and one thing only: making sure Hillary Clinton is not the next President of the United States.

Only a handful of Presidents have really made a difference in the recent past. FDR with socialized security and maneuvering the US into WWII as a way to end the depression. Nixon went to China, who if they play their cards right, will be the reigning economic and political superpower of the 22nd century. Ronald Reagan did defeat the Soviet Union and is a personal hero of mine, but his 1986 Amnesty Bill gave hope to millions of Mexicans who have since invaded America and have caused the immigration mess which will ultimately drag us down to 2nd world status.

Bill Clinton did do one thing I am eternally grateful for: he directed the military to stop purposely distorting the signals from the civilian GPS satellites. I have no sense of direction and an accurate car navigation system is essential to my well-being.

George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter I rank as the two worst Presidents of the 20th century. But for all the damage they did and bad policy they executed, America survived. If Hillary Clinton is elected President, we may not be so lucky.

This next Presidential election is all about NOT electing Hillary Clinton President. Period. Since Ron Paul is not capable of beating her head to head, he can only serve as a spoiler, talking votes away from the Republican candidate. And that elects Hillary President.

I still have great hopes for Obama. If he can get his campaign in sync, he has a chance of beating Hillary in the primaries. Texas has open primaries, and for the first time in my life, I'll be voting in the Democrat primary for Obama. If he's selected as the Democrat candidate, then frankly I don't care who wins the general election anymore so go ahead and push Ron Paul.

But my biggest nightmare is a Clinton/Obama Democrat ticket. That will be REAL tough to overcome and Ron Paul will only make it harder.

Lets talk about Ron Paul for a moment. I'm an evangelical Christian and I could support him. I agree with most of his views. But I'm from Texas and I never even HEARD of this guy before Digg and other similar outlets started publicizing him. He has NO national name recognition and as I said earlier, this is not an election about ideas: it's an election to beat Hillary. She's a household name, has more Teflon coating her than Ronald Reagan could ever dream of having, has a huge and successful political machine and the mainstream media behind her. We also have an American public that is sick of George Bush, sickened by Republicans, and is "looking for a change". It doesn't matter what the change is, it's change time.

When Bill Clinton's 2nd term expired, Hillary basically left Washington, bought a multi-million dollar house in NY (with questionable funding), said "I am a New Yorker", and ran for Senator. All the Clinton scandals and dirt were still fresh in everyones minds. She had no experience as an elected official and NY is a powerful state. She shouldn't have had a chance.

The Republicans put up Rick Lazio, a staunch conservative, very popular in his congressional district, and the darling of NY talk radio. He was a life-long New Yorker and should have mopped the floor with a blatant carpet-bagger like Hillary Clinton. But he had no name recognition in Northern New York and Hillary out-debated him. The rest is history. Yesterday's Rick Lazio is today's Ron Paul.

Fortunately (I can't believe I'm using that word), the Democrats control Congress and public support for Congress is at a low too. The Republicans could actually pick up a few seats there.
But when it comes to the Presidency, lets get real: unless one of them implodes, the Republican nominee is going to be either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. Romney is better on policy but is a Mormon. That doesn't bother me even though I consider Mormons to be cultists, not Christians, any more than it bothered me that Joe Lieberman was Jewish. Or that JFK was Catholic. This is politics, not religion. I do draw the line at Scientologists, but other than that, religion is not going to be a factor in who I vote for. Unfortunately, that may not be the case for the critical evangelical Christians the Republicans need to win. Rudy's position on abortion is not a big help there either.

The last thing we need is another excuse for Christian and conservative voters to "protest" by staying home and that's Ron Paul. Voting sometimes means holding your nose and choosing the lesser of two evils. I did that that when I voted for Bush 43 because Al Gore and his wacky environment policies would have meant $5.00/gallon gas and all kinds of other invasive, restrictive, and America-hurting policies.

Ron Paul has no chance of beating Hillary Clinton head to head. God forbid he decides to run as a third-party candidate and become another Ross Perot, syphoning off Republican votes. It's still early in the campaign so let him run as hard as he likes, as long as its against Hillary and not against the other Republican contenders. In the end, if he's any kind of factor, let him come out strongly for whomever the Republicans do select as their candidate and campaign hard for them and against Hillary. He'll live to fight another day.

One day, Ron Paul could be a viable Presidential candidate, but not this time. The goal for 2008 is to prevent Hillary Clinton, who is a clear and present danger to the nation, from becoming our next President.

At this point, I think Rudy is more electable than Mitt, even though I disagree with Rudy on a number of issues. And he needs to tone down the "9/11 hero" thing: everyone KNOWS all about that already and he doesn't need to rub it in America's face at every opportunity to profit from it....it could backfire. Rudy also did an AMAZING job in transforming NY City from a dirty, crime-ridden, dark, Batman-like Gotham City into the beautiful place it is today: I know, I lived 25 minutes away, and you just didn't visit NY, especially at night, under his predecessor's time in office. I know the liberal spin says otherwise, but Rudy really turned the city around.

And if Rudy does implode, or Mitt Romney looks to be the best bet for beating Hillary, I'll vote for him. Because, as I said at the start, this election is not about policy, ideas or any of that. This election is about one thing and one thing only: Electing ANYONE but Hillary Clinton President of the United States.

Technorati Tags:anyone but hillary in 2008, mr.unloadingzone, http://anyonebuthillaryin2008.blogspot.com, 2008 election, anyone but hillary, democrat, election 2008, hillary, hillary clinton, mitt romney, obama, presidential election, republican, ron paul, dr. paul, rudy, rudy giuliani, mitt romney
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it

Hillary Endorsed by Former Mexican President Fox!

Former Mexican President Fox, travelling on his US book tour, stated that it's time for a woman to be elected President of the United States to help America "regain its compassionate side". Since Hillary Clinton is the only woman currently running for President, this is a de facto endorsement of Mrs. Clinton.

Why should anyone be surprised since Hillary supports "fair" immigration reform (this means legalize the Illegal Aliens already here and let more in).

Fox was full of suggestions, demands, advice and criticism of America during his many interviews. He poked fun at President Bush's "grade-school-level Spanish", conveniently forgetting that the overwhelming majority of Hispanic Illegal Aliens don't even speak English. It's America's responsibility to make store signs, forms, automated phone systems, and education bilingual to accommodate the Illegal Mexican invaders.

"The United States is denying it's immigrant soul" he laments and then holds up Irving, Texas, a town actually enforcing American Immigration Law, as an example. "What is happening in Irving, Texas, is disturbing, deeply troubling" he declared. "It shows that the anti-immigrant mood that I confronted in the U.S. Congress has now reached the public at large."

You've got it backwards, Mr. Fox: the anti-ILLEGAL immigrant mood of the majority of Americans has finally reached a point where even Congress has to acknowledge it. That doesn't mean Congress is DOING anything about it; they're happy to leave that responsibility (which is theirs) to State and Local governments for now. Meanwhile, State and Local governments are frustrated because when they do try to implement THE LAW, activist liberal Judges rule against them every time. Congress needs to step up to the immigration reform table by first making sure the laws we have BARRING Illegal Immigration withstand these court decisions while ENFORCING existing laws.

This is what Mr. Fox is afraid of and why he, by implication, endorsed liberal globalist Hillary Clinton. He knows President Hillary would veto any legislation that interfered with the "rights" of Illegal Aliens.

I shook my head in amazement when yesterday, Irving Mayor Herbert Gears actually had to DEFEND the actions of the Irving government and police. "We're simply attending to our local responsibility to involve any measure available to improve the quality of life for all people that live in our city, including immigrants." It's safe to say he was referring to Legal Immigrants in that statement.

Mr. Fox made a number of other statements as a former head of state visiting and referring to the United States that are just jaw-dropping. Here's a sample and what SHOULD be the American Government's response to each:

Fox: "Many of the people from my hometown of San Cristobal are people I grew up with; honest hardworking men I played marbles with as kids, and who later had to migrate to North Dallas, Texas. Of course it hurts when these cities deny the people you grew up with and {treat them} like criminals."

Mr. Unloadingzone: If they were so honest and hardworking, why did they HAVE to ILLEGALLY migrate to North Dallas, Texas? Isn't it because Mexico has failed for decades in raising up it's poor and, instead of taking care of them, Mexico is ENCOURAGING the poor to invade America for social services, medical care, jobs, and free education? Isn't it true that your answer to poverty and inequality in Mexico is to EXPORT the problem to the USA? As to treating them like criminals, Mr. Fox, THEY ARE CRIMINALS! They reside in the United States Illegally which is a CRIME. Be my guest: take them all back to Mexico with you and treat them like kings if you like, but stop giving them handbooks on how to sneak across the US border!

Mr. Fox: feels his book is necessary to remind the US citizens of "its rich immigrant soul, its heritage that is now threatened by fear, xenophobia."

Mr. Unloadingzone: The people your ILLEGAL invaders need to fear the most are the Violent Criminal Illegal Aliens who prey on (by YOUR definition, not mine) law-abiding Illegal Aliens knowing the victims won't go to the police." YOUR criminal gangs are taking over California, areas of Texas and Arizona, and spreading throughout the US. Our "rich immigrant soul" applied to LEGAL immigrants, like my grandparents, who went through Ellis Island, entered America legally, had a REAL DESIRE to BE Americans, and blended into the melting pot which once made a unique American culture. This is 2007, not 1897. We can't afford your tired, your poor, your non-assimilating "America is a place to live, not a Country to call home" sub-class. We need nurses from the Philippines and doctors and computer engineers from Eastern Europe and India. We need educated professionals from Japan and a host of other countries who see America as an Opportunity to PARTICIPATE in, not to burden down and exploit.

Mr. Fox also greeted ILLEGAL Alien cooks and busboys at a Manhattan hotel. Thanks for the slap in face and flaunting of OUR laws, Mr. Fox! And why weren't these self-admitted ILLEGAL ALIENS immediately arrested and deported? How can we expect Mr. Fox and others to respect our laws if OUR OWN GOVERNMENT won't enforce them??

Mr. Fox also applauded the actions of Mexican Consul Enrique Hubbard Urrea when he warned (Illegal) immigrants from his country to avoid Irving, TX. He went on to strongly endorse the policy of Felipe Calderon, the current President of Mexico, that the 47 or so Mexican Consulates on US soil should be much more aggressive in defending the rights of Mexican migrants.

Mr. Unloadingzone: First of all, Mr. Fox, we are not talking about "migrants", "immigrants" or "residents".....we are talking about ILLEGAL ALIENS: people who entered this country Illegally and have no legal "right" to be here. At least be accurate in your terms. And of COURSE you support them: they wire HOME to Mexico somewhere in the area of $60 Billion a year, they don't cost you a dime to educate, feed, cloth, or provide medical care for, and are conveniently out of your hair. They are forcing YOUR culture on US while, ironically, the biggest uproar in Mexico right now is that Taco Bell opened up some restaurants in Mexico which will corrupt MEXICAN culture!

But back to the Hillary Clinton for President endorsement. During a rambling diatribe about his grandfather, Mr. Fox concluded with the statement: "That says something about the universality of immigration."

Universality. Globalism. Global Community. Socialism. America Second. World Government. Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton.

So in the Primaries and in the General Election, choose the lesser of the evils: Vote for ANYONE BUT HILLARY in 2008. Your immediate future depends on it.

Also for your reading pleasure on the plane ride home, Mr. Fox (and don't let the door hit you on the way out!):

• 1. Lets Start with Illegal Immigration.....

• 2. Immigrant Hispanics and Compassionate Racism in America

• 3. We Don't Want your "tired, poor, huddled masses" Anymore!

• 4. How to STOP Illegal Immigration for Dummies
  
  
  

Technorati Tags:anyone but hillary in 2008, mr.unloadingzone, http://anyonebuthillaryin2008.blogspot.com, 2008 election, anyone but hillary, democrat, election 2008, hillary, hillary clinton, anti-hillary, democrat, endorsment of hillary, hispanic, illegal aliens, illegal immigration, immigration, immigration reform, mexican president, republican, socialist, vicente fox
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it